Is this true? @ Rules of Engagement

[whitetrashmama]

It is true. The Rules of Engagement were changed in response to civilian casualties.

This isn't from Rush Limbaugh.

Lieberman: Rules of engagement protecting civilians ‘hurt morale’ | The Raw Story

That article specifically says soldiers can engage when fired on.

I don't know what more Leibermann wants. A return to the free fire zones of Vietnam Nam?

Not going to happen.

Instead if bitching about the ROE, which is a reality of modern war, perhaps you guys should stop being so gang ho about us getting into these fucking messes.

It takes a close reading to see that the soldiers are not completely locked down. I posted with a question mark specifically because I did NOT take the Limbaugh story as 100% but it did seem plausible. This discussion is exactly what is needed, not to be "gungho" but to use common sense when we are in a war.

The question remains: what is actually going on at the front lines? Are these soldiers being held back from defending themselves? Obama clearly does NOT support security, look at the mess about Ambassador Stevens's horrible death.

Not only "what are the actual ROE?" but "How are they being applied?"

Are Obamian officers erring on the side of passivity in how they apply the ROE? Are soldiers being wrongly trained to hesitate when fired on?

Does the sight of the enemy combattant loading a launcher count as "NOT" fired on until after the round has landed on one of ours?

See, the devil is in the details.

 

[rightwinger]

So many of these threads are mini Elms Streeters. A caller says they heard something on the Limbaugh show and bingo many accept the whole thing as the truth, and then not only accepting the call as the truth but then assigning blame for the supposed incident.
Anyone check out the truth of the charge?

What the hell would Rush know about rules of engagement?

 

[Oldguy]

So many of these threads are mini Elms Streeters. A caller says they heard something on the Limbaugh show and bingo many accept the whole thing as the truth, and then not only accepting the call as the truth but then assigning blame for the supposed incident.
Anyone check out the truth of the charge?

What the hell would Rush know about rules of engagement?

He knows his fat, pimple-covered ass engages with a chair every day.

You know...that same fat, pimple-covered ass which kept him out of Vietnam?

 

[strollingbones]

take the time to read 'lone survivor' of course you wont mention that since it was under bush.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The other day on Rush Limbaugh a caller identifying herself as a wife of an army officer who is presently in Afghanistan had some chilling information for us all. She said that the soldiers there are not allowed to fire back even when receiving incoming rocket grenades because of "Rules of Engagement" and this includes when they can actually see the enemy individual loading up the grenade-launcher on their screens.

I have yet to google around for the verification, but this caller seemed very believable and I am astounded: how far is this madness going to go? How can it have gone this far with no rebellion within the ranks? What are we doing over there at all, if this is true?

The right to self defense is inherent. It is an illegal order to not low soldiers to return fire. Even if coming from a mosque. I suspect bullshit.

It is not illegal to write rules of engagement that prohibit firing indiscriminately into crowds and endangering civilians. I believe the ROE requires a clear target before you can return fire, and to make sure that you are not needlessly endangering non combatants. That said, if there was no cover available, and retreat is impossible, no one is going to fault the soldiers for leveling a mosque in order to stay alive.

 

[whitetrashmama]

The other day on Rush Limbaugh a caller identifying herself as a wife of an army officer who is presently in Afghanistan had some chilling information for us all. She said that the soldiers there are not allowed to fire back even when receiving incoming rocket grenades because of "Rules of Engagement" and this includes when they can actually see the enemy individual loading up the grenade-launcher on their screens.

I have yet to google around for the verification, but this caller seemed very believable and I am astounded: how far is this madness going to go? How can it have gone this far with no rebellion within the ranks? What are we doing over there at all, if this is true?

The right to self defense is inherent. It is an illegal order to not low soldiers to return fire. Even if coming from a mosque. I suspect bullshit.

It is not illegal to write rules of engagement that prohibit firing indiscriminately into crowds and endangering civilians. I believe the ROE requires a clear target before you can return fire, and to make sure that you are not needlessly endangering non combatants. That said, if there was no cover available, and retreat is impossible, no one is going to fault the soldiers for leveling a mosque in order to stay alive.

The caller who spoke about the ROE was the wife of an officer and she said that even when our soldiers could see the enemy in the act of loading a launcher and they knew they were in the path of its trajectory, they could not fire. That, to me, is not the same thing as a "crowd of civilians".

(And BTW, radio show hosts are not the authorities on what comes to light on their shows and never claim to be, unlike liberal pundits who predigest anything they present. Rush Limbaugh himself did not present this information and made no pretense of having any knowledge about it. He moderated the speaker's ability to reach us and so we can examine and respond, that is all. The liberal media won't even allow such information to come to light, so why all the juvenile hate of Limbaugh?)

 

[geauxtohell]

It is true. The Rules of Engagement were changed in response to civilian casualties.

This isn't from Rush Limbaugh.

Lieberman: Rules of engagement protecting civilians ‘hurt morale’ | The Raw Story

That article specifically says soldiers can engage when fired on.

I don't know what more Leibermann wants. A return to the free fire zones of Vietnam Nam?

Not going to happen.

Instead if bitching about the ROE, which is a reality of modern war, perhaps you guys should stop being so gang ho about us getting into these fucking messes.

It takes a close reading to see that the soldiers are not completely locked down. I posted with a question mark specifically because I did NOT take the Limbaugh story as 100% but it did seem plausible. This discussion is exactly what is needed, not to be "gungho" but to use common sense when we are in a war.

The question remains: what is actually going on at the front lines? Are these soldiers being held back from defending themselves? Obama clearly does NOT support security, look at the mess about Ambassador Stevens's horrible death.

Not only "what are the actual ROE?" but "How are they being applied?"

Are Obamian officers erring on the side of passivity in how they apply the ROE? Are soldiers being wrongly trained to hesitate when fired on?

Does the sight of the enemy combattant loading a launcher count as "NOT" fired on until after the round has landed on one of ours?

See, the devil is in the details.

What is going on in the front lines is that their are no frontline.

In this country. There is no such thing a "Obamian Officers". N officer is an officer and a soldier is a soldier. We on't live in a banana republic.

Seeing someone loading a launcher is a no brainier as far as engagement goes, as is seeing anyone carrying an RPG.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really this dense?

 

[geauxtohell]

The other day on Rush Limbaugh a caller identifying herself as a wife of an army officer who is presently in Afghanistan had some chilling information for us all. She said that the soldiers there are not allowed to fire back even when receiving incoming rocket grenades because of "Rules of Engagement" and this includes when they can actually see the enemy individual loading up the grenade-launcher on their screens.

I have yet to google around for the verification, but this caller seemed very believable and I am astounded: how far is this madness going to go? How can it have gone this far with no rebellion within the ranks? What are we doing over there at all, if this is true?

The right to self defense is inherent. It is an illegal order to not low soldiers to return fire. Even if coming from a mosque. I suspect bullshit.

It is not illegal to write rules of engagement that prohibit firing indiscriminately into crowds and endangering civilians. I believe the ROE requires a clear target before you can return fire, and to make sure that you are not needlessly endangering non combatants. That said, if there was no cover available, and retreat is impossible, no one is going to fault the soldiers for leveling a mosque in order to stay alive.

It is illegal to gives orders that strip soldiers of heir inherent right to defend themselves agains a legitimate threat. That is military law 101.

It is not illegal, nor should it be, to prohibit indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

Mosques that are being used to attack Americans cease to be mosques and become legitimate targets.

The truth is, a unit that is doing counterinsurgency right doesn't have to obsess about the ROE.

 

[geauxtohell]

The right to self defense is inherent. It is an illegal order to not low soldiers to return fire. Even if coming from a mosque. I suspect bullshit.

It is not illegal to write rules of engagement that prohibit firing indiscriminately into crowds and endangering civilians. I believe the ROE requires a clear target before you can return fire, and to make sure that you are not needlessly endangering non combatants. That said, if there was no cover available, and retreat is impossible, no one is going to fault the soldiers for leveling a mosque in order to stay alive.

The caller who spoke about the ROE was the wife of an officer and she said that even when our soldiers could see the enemy in the act of loading a launcher and they knew they were in the path of its trajectory, they could not fire. That, to me, is not the same thing as a "crowd of civilians".

(And BTW, radio show hosts are not the authorities on what comes to light on their shows and never claim to be, unlike liberal pundits who predigest anything they present. Rush Limbaugh himself did not present this information and made no pretense of having any knowledge about it. He moderated the speaker's ability to reach us and so we can examine and respond, that is all. The liberal media won't even allow such information to come to light, so why all the juvenile hate of Limbaugh?)

Wow. The "wife of an officer"? That' almost exactly like being in the shit, except for the fact that is is not at all like being in he shit.

Spare me feaux outrage from hose who have no clue what they are talking about.

Other than that, I find your excusal of Limbaugh's painfully low journalistic standards to be hilarious.

 

[Moonglow]

I wouldn't be surprised if reelected, Obama will have us read Miranda warning before returning fire

Obama does not set the rules of engagement, the general that is in charge of the forces in Afghanistan does. Chain of command, please learn what it means.
Our military is not a strongly centered command, the rules of the field operation is left to the discretion of the commander.